Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange | by Adrienne Rich | T... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/20/feminism-and-fa...

Font Size: A A A

Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange

Adrienne Rich, reply by Susan Sontag MARCH 20, 1975 ISSUE

In response to:
Fascinating Fascism from the February 6, 1975 issue

To the Editors:

It was a strange experience to read Susan Sontag’s critique [NYR, February 6] of Leni
Riefenstahl and the eroticization of Nazism. I was forced to ask myself how the same mind
had produced this brilliant essay, and the equally brilliant essay which appeared a year or two
ago in Partisan Review (“The Third World of Women”). In her discussion of Riefenstahl and
SS Regalia she seems often on the verge of making important sexual/political connections
which, in fact, are never made.

First, there is a serious inaccuracy in her essay. She ascribes some of Riefenstahl’s latter-day
rehabilitation to “the fact that she is a woman,” and states that “Feminists would feel a pang at
having to sacrifice the one woman who made films that everybody acknowledges to be first-
rate.” In fact, feminists (and on reading “The Third World of Women” one imagined Sontag
not to dissociate herself from feminism) have in at least two cities protested the showing of
Riefenstahl’s films. At a women’s film festival in Chicago, organized by both feminists and
non-feminist film-makers and critics, and financed by the Chicago Tribune, Riefenstahl had
been invited to speak at a showing of Triumph of the Will; the invitation was withdrawn when
members of the Chicago women’s movement threatened to picket her. At the Telluride
Festival in Colorado, organized not by feminists but by film-culture people, Riefenstahl’s film
was picketed by women. It is worth nothing that it is not Riefenstahl or Agnes Varda, but
Leontyne Sagan and Nelly Kaplan whose films (Maedchen in Uniform, an anti-authoritarian
and lesbian film, and A Very Curious Girl) are most frequently chosen for showings at
women’s festivals, benefits, and coffeehouses.

It is, rather, the film culture that has “promoted Riefenstahl to the status of a cultural
monument,” as Sontag herself acknowledges later in her essay. The feminist movement has
been passionately anti-hierarchal and anti-authoritarian. Feminists have also been justly alert
to and critical of women who have “made it” in the patriarchy (and Nazi Germany was
patriarchy in its purest, most elemental form). It is impossible not to recognize and mourn the
pressures that drive token women to compromise their sisters and to serve misogynist and
anti-human values. But there is a running criticism by radical feminists of male-identified
“successful” women, whether they are artists, executives, psychiatrists, Marxists, politicians,
or scholars.

The failed connections in Sontag’s essay lead me to think back on “The Third World of
Women.” (This was a puzzling title, especially since “The Fourth World Manifesto,” an

1 de 5 24/11/17 14:25
Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange | by Adrienne Rich | T... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/20/feminism-and-fa...

important feminist paper by Barbara Burris and others, reprinted earlier in Notes from the
Third Year, had delineated the idea of national culture as male culture, and of the imperialism
toward women of “anti-imperialist” movements.) Sontag’s lucid and beautifully reasoned
Partisan Review piece begins to seem, after all, more of an intellectual exercise than the
expression of a felt reality—her own—interpreted by a keen mind.

Many women, reading that piece, began to look in Sontag’s new work for a serious reflection
of feminist values. But there is an absence of integration or even continuity between “The
Third World of Women” and, say, the film Promised Lands or the recent series of essays on
photography. One is not looking for a “line” of propaganda or a “correct” position. One is
simply eager to see this woman’s mind working out of a deeper complexity, informed by
emotional grounding; and this has not yet proven to be the case.

What are the themes of domination and enslavement, prurience and idealism, male physical
perfection and death, “control, submissive behavior, and extravagant effort,” “the turning of
people into things,” “vitality…identified with physical ordeal,” the objectification of the body
as separate from the emotions—what are these but masculinist, virilist, patriarchal values?
Isn’t the black-leather, brothel, ecstasy-in-death fantasy far less a lesbian fantasy than a
fantasy of heterosexual males and the male homosexuals they oppress? And isn’t the
infatuation with these themes at this time possibly one aspect of the backlash of a false and
threatened virility against the feminist rejection of those values, and their increasing rejection
in the pervasively changing consciousness of women who do not call themselves feminists?

I wish that Sontag could have carried her exploration of this cult beyond its encapsulation in a
fad, or even in the phenomenon called fascism, and perceived it in the light of patriarchal
history, sexuality, pornography, and power, in which the first people turned into things are
always women, and female (negative) qualities are attributed to every dominated group as the
excuse for domination. It is frustrating, and suggestive of the ways women’s minds, as well as
bodies, have been colonized, that this did not happen. And it is this kind of dissociation of
one kind of knowledge from another which reinforces cultism and aesthetic compromise with
the representatives of oppression; precisely what Sontag herself was writing to deplore.

Adrienne Rich

New York City

Susan Sontag replies:
A quick answer to the puzzle Adrienne Rich has concocted in her flattering, censorious letter:
“how the same mind produced this brilliant essay and the equally brilliant essay which
appeared a year or two ago in Partisan Review (‘The Third World of Women’).” Easy. By
addressing itself to a different problem, with the intention of making a different point.

Ms. Rich implies that I have made a slur on the feminist movement by suggesting that the
vested interest and pride large numbers of women now have in all women of accomplishment
have been propitious to Riefenstahl’s remarkable comeback. Is that a “serious inaccuracy” on
my part? If anything, I think that I understated the matter. The poster that Niki de Saint Phalle
produced for the 1973 New York Film Festival (“Agnes Leni Shirley”) accurately reflected
the contribution made by feminist consciousness at a certain level to whitewashing
Riefenstahl.

2 de 5 24/11/17 14:25
Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange | by Adrienne Rich | T... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/20/feminism-and-fa...

As someone who has been contacted by the organizers of dozens of festivals and programs in
North America, Western Europe, and Australia devoted to films by women, I can assure
Adrienne Rich that, despite the rare occasions when the blue light doesn’t get to shine in
person (Chicago) or gets picketed when she does (Telluride), Riefenstahl’s films are
invariably selected and shown. Indeed, the multiplication of such events has gotten them
shown frequently for the first time since the 1930s. It is simply untrue that Riefenstahl’s
films—along with Agnes Varda’s—are often slighted, in favor of Leontyne Sagan’s superb
film and Nelly Kaplan’s mediocre ones. (Why, in heaven’s name, exclude Agnes Varda?)

I didn’t stick the blame for Riefenstahl’s rehabilitation on female chauvinism first, then
“acknowledge later” the real villain to be what Rich calls “the film culture.” And I never
meant to suggest that Riefenstahl’s recent mutation from unperson to superstar has met with
no catcalls—although, according to my informants, the conspicuous contingent of picketers at
last summer’s festival in Telluride, Colorado, were Jews from Denver, not feminists. I would
assume that Riefenstahl offends some feminists (though I wish it were for a better reason than
her being on that ominous-sounding enemies list, “male-identified ‘successful’ women”), just
as her acclamation has troubled a few notables in the cinéphile establishment—for example,
Amos Vogel, in an article in The New York Times (May 13, 1973). The important point is that
the dissenters, whether in the women’s movement or in “the film culture,” are bucking a fait
accompli brought about by trends running through our culture.

But my alleged misrepresentation of what takes place at specialized film festivals is not
what most vexes Rich. Her main charge is that I have further let down the good cause by not
exploring the feminist implications of my subject (those “failed connections”): namely, the
roots of fascism in “patriarchal values.” Virginia Woolf was, as far as I know, the first woman
to make the connection, in Three Guineas (1938): “fighting the tyranny of the patriarchal
state” is the same as “fighting the tyranny of the Fascist state.” It is a rousing three-quarters
truth when used in a general brief for feminism (what I was attempting in the text published
in 1973 in Partisan Review, where Woolf is quoted). It is a skimpy half-truth if your subject
is—as mine was in the NYR essay—fascism and fascist aesthetics.

Applied to a particular historical subject, the feminist passion yields conclusions which,
however true, are extremely general. Like all capital moral truths, feminism is a bit simple-
minded. That is its power and, as the language of Rich’s letter shows, that is its limitation.
Fascism must also be seen in the context of other—less perennial—problems. I tried to make
a number of careful distinctions, and if my essay has some merit it lies in those distinctions.

Rich wants to persuade me that I’m haggling, unwilling to take the moral plunge. “What are
these but masculinist, virilist, patriarchal values?” she asks. The trouble with what-are-these-
but arguments is that they lead not just to a devaluation of the complexity of history, but to
aspersions upon its very claim on our attention. Thus what I was discussing gets scaled down
to a mere “cult” encapsulated in a “fad.” Holding the subject at arms’ length with a pair of
verbal tongs, Rich refers to a “phenomenon called fascism” as if she were in some doubt
about its reality—as indeed she is since, according to her view, all that epiphenomenal trash is
nothing “in the light of” the real stuff, “patriarchal history.”

Suppose, indeed, that “Nazi Germany was patriarchy in its purest, most elemental form.”
Where do we rate the Kaiser’s Germany? Caesarist Rome? Confucian China? Fascist Italy?

3 de 5 24/11/17 14:25
Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange | by Adrienne Rich | T... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/20/feminism-and-fa...

Victorian England? Ms. Gandhi’s India? Macho Latin America? Arab sheikery from
Mohammed to Qaddhafi and Faisal? Most of history, alas, is “patriarchal history.” So
distinctions will have to be made, and it is not possible to keep the feminist thread running
through the explanations all the time. Virtually everything deplorable in human history
furnishes material for a restatement of the feminist plaint (the ravages of the patriarchy, etc.),
just as every story of a life could lead to a reflection on our common mortality and the vanity
of human wishes. But if the point is to have meaning some of the time, it can’t be made all the
time.

It is this demand for an unremitting rhetoric, with every argument arriving triumphantly at a
militant conclusion, which has prevented some feminists from properly appreciating that most
remarkable of recent contributions to the feminist imagination of history, Elizabeth
Hardwick’s Seduction and Betrayal. A more specific reproach leveled against Hardwick’s
complex book is that it implicitly defends “elitist” values (like talent, genius), which are
incompatible with the egalitarian ethics of feminism. I hear an echo of this self-righteous
view when Rich characterizes the feminist movement as “passionately anti-hierarchal and
anti-authoritarian.”

That phrase, whether as a sample of “feminist values” or simply as a relic of the infantile
leftism of the 1960s, seems to me sheer demagogy. However opposed I am to authority based
on privileges of gender (and of race), I cannot imagine any form of human life or society
without some forms of authority, of hierarchy. I am not against elders having some authority
over young people, not against authority that is publicly accountable, not against all
meritocracy. The hope of abolishing authority as such is part of a childish, sentimental fantasy
about the human condition. Much of feminist rhetoric not only tends to reduce history to
psychology but leaves one with a shallow psychology as well as a thinned-out sense of
history. (Vide the criticisms made by Juliet Mitchell.)

Rich explains that she is “simply eager” to see my mind “working out of a deeper complexity,
informed by emotional grounding.” But it seems to me—from where I stand (sit, write)—that
it’s just because the complexity deepens and thickens that I am unable to put my shoulder to
the feminist wheel in the fashion she would like me to. Despite her demurrer about “not
looking for a ‘line’ of propaganda or a ‘correct’ position,” this is exactly what she is doing.
Why else would I be chided for not bending the immense subject of the image-world created
by photography (the NYR essays) or a meditation on death and report on the current agony of
the state of Israel (my recent film Promised Lands) to the concerns of feminism? But it is
surely not treasonable to think that there are other goals than the depolarization of the two
sexes, other wounds than sexual wounds, other identities than sexual identity, other politics
than sexual politics—and other “anti-human values” than “misogynist” ones.

Even the feminist text that I wrote, for which Rich has such kind words at the beginning of
her letter, is now revalued—downward—in view of my presumed failure to keep up feminist
pressure at the center of my writing and film-making. Its very title now becomes “puzzling,”
suggesting unsuspected ignorance on my part of a dernier cri of feminist polemics, “The
Fourth World Manifesto.” (No puzzle. The editors of Partisan Review, after accepting my
text—it had been turned down by Ms., to which it was first submitted, as being too long and
too abstruse—decided without consulting me to substitute for my boring title—“Reply to a

4 de 5 24/11/17 14:25
Feminism and Fascism: An Exchange | by Adrienne Rich | T... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/03/20/feminism-and-fa...

Questionnaire”—their silly one.) Because my subsequent writings don’t dot the i’s and cross
the t’s of the feminist case, that Partisan Review text “begins to seem, after all, more of an
intellectual exercise than the expression of a felt reality—her own—interpreted by a keen
mind.”

If Rich (hardly as ferociously as some of our sisters) is going to start baiting that heavy bear,
the intellect, then I feel obliged to announce that anyone with a taste for “intellectual
exercise” will always find in me an ardent defender. Truth has need of all kinds of exertion.
Although I defy anyone to read what I wrote and miss its personal, even autobiographical
character, I much prefer that the text be judged as an argument and not as an “expression” of
anything at all, my sincere feelings included.

Adrienne Rich, whom I have always admired as poet and phenomenologist of anger, is a piker
compared to some self-styled radical feminists, all too eager to dump the life of reason (along
with the idea of authority) into the dustbin of “patriarchal history.” Still, her well-intentioned
letter does illustrate a persistent indiscretion of feminist rhetoric: anti-intellectualism. “One
imagined Sontag not to dissociate herself from feminism,” Rich observes. Right. But I do
dissociate myself from that wing of feminism that promotes the rancid and dangerous
antithesis between mind (“intellectual exercise”) and emotion (“felt reality”). For precisely
this kind of banal disparagement of the normative virtues of the intellect (its
acknowledgement of the inevitable plurality of moral claims; the rights it accords, alongside
passion, to tentativeness and detachment) is also one of the roots of fascism—what I was
trying to expose in my argument about Riefenstahl.

© 1963-2017 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.

5 de 5 24/11/17 14:25